MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: This morning, the campaign is just getting hot, but it`s already time to think about the challenge of governing. And nearly 11 years sings September 11th. When will we make peace with each other?

But first, we are going to Pennsylvania. Because believe it or not, there is a plan to rig this election.

Good morning, I`m Melissa Harris-Perry.

If you are old enough to be a baby nerd back in the `70s, you remember learning for the first time on school house rock how a bill becomes a law. Remember just a bill sitting on Capitol Hill when he told us his life story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I started I wasn`t even a bill. I was just an idea. Some folks pack home decided they wanted a law passed and called a local congressman and said you`re right there, ought to be a law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Well, this morning, I would like to look a little more into the life story of a law that`s not quite as innocent as our little friend Bill on Capitol Hill.

Pennsylvania`s voter ID legislation. This week, it will find its way into Pennsylvania`s Supreme Court, where the American civil liberties union and other opponents will present oral arguments against it. Pennsylvania`s law requiring voting identification at the polls is one of the strictest in the nation.

Opponents at this week`s Pennsylvania Supreme Court hearing will be appealing the decision, a commonwealth court judge Robert Simpson. Last month, Simpson rejected a preliminary injunction request that would have kept the law from being implemented at the polls on November 6th. Simpson based his decision on a U.S. Supreme Court case. Crawford versus Marion county, a 2008 ruling in which the court upheld voter ID law in Indiana.

You see, prior to 2006 when the Indiana law passed, no state ever required a voter to produce a government issued photo ID as a condition to vote. Indiana was the first. And in it argument before the Supreme Court, the state of Indiana, just like the state of Pennsylvania in the lower court, admitted that it could come up with no -- that there zero, zilch, zip, goose egg, no cases of in person voter fraud. Which is the very thing that the law is designed to protect against.

But the Supreme Court upheld it anyway and set a precedent that merely the threat of voter fraud was enough to justify a voter ID law. Only that threat, it doesn`t exist.

According to the Brendan center which released an extensive analysis of voter fraud in 2007, quote "allegations of voter fraud, especially polling place impersonation fraud, almost always prove to be inflated or inaccurate. The truth of the matter is that voter fraud, in other words, votes knowingly cast by ineligible individuals, is exceedingly rare." I love this line. "One is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud."

So, at this point in the story, our law finds itself in a bit of an existential crisis. You see, its whole reason for being is a myth. What`s very real, however, are the people who could be denied their voting rights because of the law. 12.8 percent of registered Pennsylvania voters, more than one million people and 12.6 percent of Pennsylvania voters who voted in 2008, that`s more than 750,000 voters, lack a valid photo ID under the law. And those least likely to have ballot identification are not you pretty diverse group, African-Americans, Latinos, young people, the poor, people with disabilities.

Here`s the one thing they always share in common. They have tendency to vote for the Democratic Party which brings me to the beginning.

The Pennsylvania law grew up to attract national attention, but it had humble beginnings in a Republican-dominated state legislature. You see, before 2010, Democrats had run the house in Pennsylvania for four years, and Pennsylvania`s first attempt to pass a voter ID bill, which have been vetoed in 2006 by the former governor, Ed Rendell. But after the election, Pennsylvania flipped from a blue state to a red one with the house, Senate, and governor, all dominated by the Republican party.

And to this guy. Pennsylvania state representative Daryl Metcalfe. Think of him as the bill`s daddy. He first introduced it under its formal name, the Pennsylvania voter identification protection act. Coincidently, Metcalfe also a member of the American legislative exchange council. You may remember it by its acronym, ALEC.

You also may remember the name Alec being mentioned in connection with the Trayvon Martin case. Imagine if a bill from the hill had its origins not in some idea from some folks back home, but an organized group that brings corporations together with hundreds of state legislators who are sympathetic to the interests of those corporations. And instead of those folks back home calling their local congressman to write a bill, ALEC drafts model legislation for those legislators to take back to their states to pass into law. Stand your ground was one of those model laws, so was voter ID the bill, drafted by ALEC in 2009, according to a report from news 21. The investigated reporting project of the Walter Cronkite school of journalism.

So, representative Metcalfe told the Philadelphia Enquirer last month that Pennsylvania`s voter ID law was based on the Indiana law that was upheld by the Supreme Court and not influenced by his ALEC membership. And yet, news 21`s analysis found more than half of the 62 voter bills introduced nationwide were sponsored by members or conference attendees of ALEC.

But, of course, correlation does not equal causation, which may leave us with more questions about the life of the Pennsylvania ID law and how it began. Fortunately, Daryl Metcalfe`s colleague in the Pennsylvania`s statehouse representative Mike Turzai has given us all a clear answer about where he hopes it will end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE TURZAI (R), PENNSYLVANIA: We are focused on making sure we meet our obligations that we talked for years. Pro second amendment, the council documents, done. First pro life legislation, abortion facility regulations in 22 years, done. Voter ID which is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: With me at the table, Judith Browne Dianis is the co-director of the Advancement Project, Kenji Yushino is a professor, NYU, Dorian Warren is an assistant professor at Columbia University, and Mickey Edwards is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma.

Thank you all, for joining me today.

Did I get that about right, Judith?

JUDITH BROWNE DIANIS, CO-DIRECTOR, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT: Yes. You hit it on the head, you told the story. Here we are in Pennsylvania, advancement project discount in that case. That will be in the Supreme Court next week. And we know, no evidence of voter fraud, we know who would hit, one group that also hits are veterans who don`t have expiration dates on their ID.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. I was thinking, why would veterans have IDs? Was it because they don`t have expiration day.

DIANIS: That`s right. They expire I guess.

HARRIS-PERRY: Pause and explain that, right?. Because I want to be clear. I think a lot of viewers may not realize, it is not just you have to have something that shows who you are, but there very specific rules about it.

DIANIS: That`s right. What`s important, the way the laws have been crafted and really crafted for partisan gain by politicians who want to manipulate the laws for their own gain, for their party, is that they surgically crafted them so that they actually hit the people that they want to suppress the votes. And so, the way that they have been crafted is that their state issued, photo ID with a current address no, expiration date. And so for example, in Pennsylvania, over 80 percent of the colleges and universities actually did not have an expiration date on their IDs, so those students faced with not being able to vote.

HARRIS-PERRY: I think it`s the surgical nature of it that feels to me like we`ve gone to a place where -- like this just can`t really be about the notion of voter fraud, because you know, if you can sort of show basically it`s clear this is I am who I am, then you wouldn`t have a problem within person.

DORIAN WARREN, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: So, let me give you another example of how this is a coordinated national campaign. So, in the state of Minnesota, Republicans took over the legislature for the first time in 40 years and immediately passed a similar kind of law. It vetoed.

So, what did they do? They put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall that would essentially do the same thing. It would end same day registration. It would end basically absentee voting because if you are a soldier in Afghanistan, you can`t prove have you an ID, right, when you go to vote. So, same thing, the chair of the state party of ALEC, the chair of ALEC in the state was the lead sponsor. So, this was coordinated with the intention of disenfranchising the voters of a certain party.

HARRIS-PERRY: You know, Mickey, because I`m making a claim that this is about parties, and you and I are going to talk more specifically about your book a little later in the show. But, this notion that one party has a specific interest. Let me clear, historically, it was the Democratic Party, right, conservative Democrats at the turn of the century who passed the kind of Jim Crow laws and now we have the Republican party. Is there any way that we can imagine voting rights not being a partisan issue, but being sort of a more broadly American concern?

MICKEY EDWARDS, AUTHOR, THE POLITICS VERSUS THE PEOPLE: No. It`s not going to change until we stopped thinking about deciding everything, based not on the common good, but what`s good for our political party. And that`s done not just on voter laws, but it is done on almost every kind of a law. You see it in Washington all the time. So, just in legislature sits what helps my party trumps, what`s the right thing to do for the country?

And so, no. That it`s not going to change until we address that much more fundamental problem.

HARRIS-PERRY: Is there something here about America`s rapidly changing demographics? I mean, I know that Chris Hayes talked about this on "Up," that it feels like the end of the last reconstruction when - once you saw to black and brown people beginning take power? Is that what this is? Is this about the fact that demographics are not in favor of the Republican Party and therefore, rather than battling it out to win votes, they will just suppress those voters.

DIANIS: That`s right. I think I t definitely has a correlation. And also, you have to go back up to redistricting also.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

DIANIS: So, the Republicans gain control of several legislatures in 2010, they redistrict themselves into power and then they start to pass these laws that will keep them in power for a long time. And in places like Texas, for example, where they passed a very strict voter ID law, where you can vote if you have a gun license, but not if you have a college ID, right? That`s a place where we see changing demographics happening very quickly. And so, there this kind of scramble to make sure they can hold on to their power in light of that.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. It feels to me, and you know, I guess part of the reason I wanted to tell that story is that there`s kind of a discursive language here about suppression and trying to -- but, really if we just walk through what we actually know, the pathway seems very clear and then we have, of course, Turzai saying this is about electing and allowing Mitt Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Is there any -- I want to -- is there any good legal or ethical or democratic with a little "d" reason to have a voter ID? Like does it improve the quality of democracy in some way?

KENJI YOSHINO, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: I don`t think so. My favorite line about this all. And my favorite line about this is actually from (INAUDIBLE) for bringing it to my attention. But the line is "men feared witches and burned women." "Men feared witches and Burn Women." In other words, he was talking about a different right, the right to free speech, but he was saying this communist threat in that case, is just being jiggered up in order to prey on people`s paranoia, and the people who are actually getting hurt are innocent.

So, if you translate like that into this context, as Ben Carlo (ph) has done, the idea would be men fear imposters or voter fraudsters and are burning, right, legitimate voters, right? So again, This boogie man that, again, every court that has looked although this at least recently, including the Crawford court and including the Pennsylvania court that we`ve just been talking about, has said there is no evidence of voter fraud, so we teach to do this on the basis of some Chimerical (ph) threat that exist out there, right? And real people are getting hook by this.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, even we take the most na‹ve hypothesis and we say, OK, this is really is just about some desire to protect democracy from fraudulent voters, even then, the sort of solution to it is --

DIANIS: ID does not fix it.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. ID does not fix it.

DIANIS: Right. I mean, this - because first of all, this is not about preventing fraud, it was about preventing voting. And really, this is an issue where you have -- you don`t have Mickey mouse going to vote as Judith Browne-Dianis.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

DIANIS: But have you people trying to live off that fear so they can conjure up the rhetoric to actually push these laws through and then in a way that kind a makes sense to the average, you know, person. Oh, an ID to go vote. Well, in fact, we all want integrity in our elections, right? And because that`s what our democracy is great because we all get to participate. We want integrity. But actually passing laws to manipulate the system so that you can win is not about integrity.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Right. Voter has supposed to choose their elected officials, not elected officials choosing their voters. So, just in case you think that what we`re talking about isn`t real, just for a second you think voter suppression tactics aren`t going to impact the election. Wait until you see what we found inside from voter`s pockets down in Pennsylvania. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: According an online database, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania includes at least 190 institutions of higher education. That means the state has some 6 665,000 college and graduate students, and they are the very folks least likely to have identification under the state`s new laws. And, therefore, they may not be able to vote.

They are also overwhelmingly likely to support President Obama. And in 2008 President Obama won 18 to 29-year-olds in Pennsylvania 65 percent to senator McCain`s 35 percent.

Now, I want to know do those young people have any idea what`s going on? to answer this question, I sent a young person to find out. Our very own NBC page Kristin Bucaria, a 2012 graduate of Bucknell University. She went back to her old stomping grounds in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTIN BUCARIA, MSNBC PAGE: You can tell me about the voter ID laws?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can`t, because I don`t know much about them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know there is this new change going on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do know you having to have the date on the ID

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Didn`t know if it actually passed.

BUCARIA: Basically, students have to have an expiration date on their IDs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

BUCARIA: So, this is Brock`s, not Barack student ID can I see your ID? Do you have it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, absolutely.

BUCARIA: The thing that matters is there is no expiration date on it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So, I need an expiration date.

BUCARIA: You need an expiration date on it in order to vote?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?

BUCARIA: That`s part of the new voter ID laws.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

BUCARIA: Yes. What do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s ridiculous. Absolutely, ridiculous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are living here. We are 18. We should be able to vote.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it`s just makes it harder like or makes it less convenient to vote. So, it`s like, oh, my not going to go to (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just think it`s a hassle. The students may not know about getting the extra sticker or being able to do - go over those steps.

BUCARIA: This new vote every ID law has never been around in Pennsylvania. What do you think the purpose of it is?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To detract a large population from being able to vote, and a lot of kids will not -- a lot of kids will not know exactly what is going on when they go to try and vote.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pennsylvania could be swayed by a number of students here like in here, they might --.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the number of people who don`t have a license at all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The poorer population also might not have an ID, for example, a driver`s license. Not everyone has a driver`s license. There is public transportation that everyone can take.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People who really in to it and who really want to vote, they are going to find a way to vote.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it`s a smart idea. I mean, you don`t want people to say coming up and randomly voting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People have died, friends of mine, giving us a right to vote, freedom, stuff like that. So, if people are trying to take that away, that`s absolutely un-American.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS-PERRY: And now Kristen, the NBC page, joins us.

Kristen, that was great reporting, but honestly I`m a little freaked out. Are there any college students in Pennsylvania who are going to be able to vote?

BUCARIA: Hi, Melissa the more proactive ones will, but for the frightening thing is, that for most students, their school ID is the main form of identification. In 2008, when I was a freshman, I was able to vote with just my student ID, and now that will not the case. The Pennsylvania public interest research group found that 115 schools in the state provide student IDs without expiration dates which means she they don`t satisfy the new voter requirements.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK. So, if universities are providing IDs without the needed expiration date, is there anything the universities can do about that?

BUCARIA: Well, Bucknell, my alma mater for example, will provide students with expiration date stickers for their IDs that comply with the new law. But what I found when I went there for you, is that many students don`t even really want to go through the trouble of figuring out how to get the sticker. And you know, they -- some of them are undecided voter whether or not they are even going to vote. So, it`s just an added hassle to them and hurdle.

HARRIS-PERRY: Kristin, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to go down the Pennsylvania for us and stay tuned because I`m going to send you out on assignment again.

When we come back, we`re moving beyond Pennsylvania, because the efforts to rig the vote are under way in multiple battleground states. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Remember last week when we told you about these small voting rights victories in places like Texas, and Florida, and Ohio? Not so fast.

Late last week, a federal judge in Ohio ruled against the state`s elimination of early voting, the weekend leading up to the election. Then this week, the Republican secretary of state John Houston said he is just not going to comply with the court`s order, because it would quote, "only serve to confuse voters."

In the same judge who reinstated the weekend voting, ordered Houston to appear in court this coming Thursday. Houston then backed down, issued a formal apology to the court, but that`s not the end of the. Now, Ohio`s attorney general, Republican Mike DeWine (ph), says he`ll appeal the judge`s ruling and once again, try to eliminate early voting the weekend ahead of the election.

Folks this battle is apparently going to continue. Ohio is doing this differently. This is not a voter ID issue. What`s going on in Ohio?

DIANIS: So Ohio, just like Florida, eliminated the weekend voting, which is early voting right before the election, you can go and vote. We know that in places like in Ohio, 56 percent of the early votes that were cast in places Cuyahoga County where Cleveland is, were African-American. We know that in both Ohio and Florida, this is where you have the souls to the polls program, where African-Americans churches went down to the polls after church and voted in unity.

While here we have a state that`s -- two states have decided we have to cut off early voting opportunities. But Ohio decides to be recalcitrant, right? The secretary of state is like I`m not listening to that court. Obama for America actually filed that case, and they didn`t want to listen to it. So the judge pulled them up.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, I want to play a little bit history here because, just as - so we got Ohio. Ohio is having the battle around early voting. We got Pennsylvania with the ID. I want to listen for a moment to -- to congressman John Lewis, who spoke about what it took to get voting rights in this country, and it`s such a powerful moment, from the DNC, when he was talking with MSNBC`s own Andrea Mitchell. Let`s take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: I would never forget the three young men in Mississippi Andy Guttmann (ph), Mickey Sherman (ph), white, James Shaney (ph), African-Americans, they died by trying to encourage other people to become registered. And it would be an affront for what they died for and all of those people that struggled for us to allow people to keep people today from registered and voting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: All right. Now, I want to set that against a new ad that the state of Pennsylvania is playing, about getting your -- about getting your voter ID. Here we have John Lewis, saying it would be an affront to our history as Americans to require this, but here is what Pennsylvania is saying about the requirements to get a proper ID.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you care about it this election.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you care about this election.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you have an opinion.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you want a voice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you want a voice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you want to make a difference.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you want to vote, then show it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Show it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Show it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you care about this country, it`s time to show it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So if you care about the country, pay your poll tax. Like go get your voter ID.

YOSHINO: That`s what it is.

HARRIS-PERRY: Those two versions was like, to be a good American, we should make voting easy, versus to be a good American, basically, you know, jump over the hurdled. Is that what we`re looking at here? A battle about of that fundamental meaning?

DIANIS: I think there are two things going on. One is that our elections really should be free, fair and accessible. But we have a really underlying discussion going on in this country about whether or not voting really is a right or a privilege. And we are going to have to have that conversation. Most believe would believe this is a right. It`s fundamental to our democracy.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, Kenji.

YOSHINO: And not only that, it is a right. But it is a right preservative of all other rights. That`s very important, has told us that. Because if you don`t have a right to vote, then are you are actually not part of the policy. People don`t have to engage you, they don`t have to persuade you because you are basically outside of the conversation or outside the policy. Oftentimes bring up the first day of constitutional law, why is it that we hold such filty to the conversation that was created by white, property, male, dead people owners?

HARRIS-PERRY: But we love it than the last.

YOSHINO: Exactly. Oftentimes, the answer is because the notion of the status based exclusions to win the people was kind of confronted and overcome. So, four of the 27 amendments or constitution expand the franchise of the fifteenth amendment in the basis of race. The ninth is the amendment in the basis of gender. The 24th the basis of wealth. No poll tax, 26th amendment, ways of age.

So, we have this gradually expanding electorate. So, I`m with John Lewis, I mean, to say that, you know, all of these hard-won victories bought with flood and immeasurable suffering would suddenly be turned back, even chipped away around the edges with this voter ID law really a travois to it.

HARRIS-PERRY: And Mickey, I wanted you to speak because they are saying, show it. If you care about the country, show it. So, you showed me something amazing during the break.

EDWARDS: I still have my congressional ID card and it doesn`t have an expiration date. Even though I`m no longer in Congress. And so, I could walk into a polling place and show that I`m a member of the United States Congress and that would be not enough to get me in those cases the right to vote.

But, you know, this is not just about the immediate legislation. We`ve always made it hard for people in the working class to be able to vote. We have this system where for the most part in those states, the polls is closed at 7:00, you had to vote near your home, you have to vote on a weekday, a work day. Well, you know for a lot of people, you can`t walk off from your office and say I`m going to go vote. And it made it very difficult for people who worked in factories, 20 miles from their home or whatever to participate. It`s a bigger problem.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. If you are working shift work and particularly in an economy when folks don`t have -- I will let you in on it. I`m also got, you know -- Kenji, bring it to the table to talk me through the constitutional laws.

But also, when we come back, I want to know, is this going to the Supreme Court? And if does, what does it mean? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Think about the statistic reported by Ari Berman of "the Nation" magazine. Eight of 11 states of the former confederacy have passed restrictive voting laws since the 2010 election. Now, we told you last week about a federal court blocking the Texas voter ID, and why it won`t affect the 2012 election, it is likely the state will appeal.

Closing argument involving South Carolina`s voter ID law begin later this month with all of the legal challenges surrounding voting rules in so many different states, it`s hard to see how this issue doesn`t eventually land before the John Roberts Supreme Court.

And that`s the topic, we turn to Kenji.

So, Kenji, two things here, obviously we have Pennsylvania and Ohio. Neither one of those states are under the preclearance rules of the voting rights act. But Texas is, South Carolina is. Explain to me the different courts in which these things will be challenged.

YOSHINO: Absolutely. So, just to take a step back for viewers. What we`re talking about is the voting rights act of 1965, and under that voting rights act still in effect, under section five of that act, there are certain states that have such a negative history of restricting the franchise on the basis of race, that they have to engage in preclearance before they make change to the election law.

So, Texas and South Carolina are two of them, right? And the reason that this isn`t an issue in say, Ohio or Pennsylvania, is that those two states are not preclearance states. So, the voting rights act doesn`t control those states.

HARRIS-PERRY: They were free states during slavery. They were states that were part of the union and they didn`t have a Jim Crow history.

YOSHINO: Exactly. So, the voting -- this is a huge boon voters in states like Texas or/and South Carolina or any other that they are covered jurisdiction. Because it basically places the "on us" on the state rather than the disenfranchised individual, potentially disenfranchised individual to make their case.

And so, what has been happening in Ohio and Pennsylvania, is that the court is saying, well, we are going to weigh this, you know. And basically we`re going to look at the potential for voter fraud, and we are going to look at the burden on potentially disenfranchised voters.

The voting act says, because of the negative history that this particular state has had, the thumb is heavily on the scale against the state and for the plaintiff, right? So what is happening now, is a lot of states are complaining and saying the voting rights act itself is unconstitutional. And that town, we don`t need to wait, Melissa, for either Texas or south Carolina, because there are cases that will actually go up to the court this very upcoming term. So, Supreme Court terms are like academic years. So, about 2012, 2013 term is a term which the Supreme Court could consider a challenge to section five of the voting rights act.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, there is some possibility that the voting rights act of 1965, which helps protect folks and make voting possible --

YOSHINO: That preclearance could be struck down. Not the voting rights act in its entirety. But that preclearance section. And in fact, in a 2009 case, (INAUDIBLE) case, chief justice John Roberts sort of there`s an A1, this came up before the court, an A1 decision. The court took a buy and found a loophole on the statue, not to address squarely the constitutional question. But the constitutional question is does Congress even have the power to enact section five of the voting rights act? And that question is could be squarely presented before the court as early as this term.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. And a court that has generally been on the side of not thinking of the federal government.

DIANIS: And it`s because these states are saying we don`t discriminate any longer, that was a long time ago. So, this is unconstitutional as applied to us now. And so, we are going see that happening, but we have to understand the right wing has been setting this up for a long time to have section five of the voting rights act struck down.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. And we are, you know, we are not done this with this issue, that`s why we`re calling it this week in voter suppression. Every week is there is something new.

Kenji, thank you for joining us at the table. The rest will be back for more.

And up next, we are on the eve of 9/11 anniversary, and I want to ask about how we view the word "terrorism."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Tuesday is September 11th. Eleven years ago on that date, America entered a new age of terror. The attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. made us feel uniquely vulnerable. And this sense of vulnerability has directed our foreign policy for more than a decade.

It also influenced actions here at home, leading to unprecedented restrictions on civil liberties and leading many to presume to know who among us is threatening dangerous and potentially a terrorist.

That presumption is based on our definition of terror. What it is, and who commits it. Now, terrorism is more than simply violence, assassins and mass murderers are not necessarily terrorists.

Terrorists shoos their victims because of their identity and because of their connection to a government. Terrorist act with the goal of creating and paralyzing fear. That`s why September 11, 2001 was not the first act of terrorism in America.

For example, for decades, the Ku Klux Klan terrorized black community. In 1995, Timothy P. McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Mura building in Oklahoma city to shame and terrified the government. But these acts of terrorism did not lead is to define all white men as potential threats to the safety and security of the United States.

But the horror of September 11th, 2001 led far too many to assume that all Muslims or assumed Muslims are potential threats. Terrorism not only makes people afraid it makes them feel alone, it hampers dialogue, connections and shared experience.

Terrorists win when we turn on each other like when we protest a symbol of reconciliation, such as the so-called ground zero mosque. It opened last year with a gallery of photographs featuring children in New York city.

Eleven years later, I want to ask, not about the foreign wars that 9/11 initiated, but whether a domestic peace is possible.

Joining me now to ponder these questions are interfaith youth choir founder and president Eboo Patel, Amaney Jamal, a politics professor at Princeton University and author of empire and citizens pro-American democracy or no democracy at all, and Valerie Kaur, a Sikh American filmmaker and advocate who chronicled hate violence against the Sikh community for more than a decade.

Thank you all for being here.

I want to start with you. Tell me a little about the data I made a claim that post 9/11, we developed a new notion of who is the other, who is the threat. Do the data show that?

AMANEY JAMAL, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Absolutely. If you look at public opinion favorability scores toward Muslim-Americans after 9/11 and looking at them today a decade later, people -- the average American is far more worried and suspicious of the average Muslim than they were a decade ago right after 9/11. So in the last decade, things have gotten much worse for the Muslim community.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, that sense of anxiety has actually grown over the past ten years?

JAMAL: Absolutely. Coupled with an environment and an atmosphere that has complicity and explicitly promoted Islamaphobia (ph) whether it`s from public officials, the media, public opinion, Islamaphobia (ph) today is far worse than it was on the eve of 9/11.

HARRIS-PERRY: I`m a little obsessed with your book. I`ve been spending a lot of time with it. It`s got sticky notes on it. But exactly this idea is part of what I felt resonating in it. You write about feeling like there was never a moment previously, before 9/11, where it was even really a question to imagine yourself as both Muslim and American. But that particularly the so-called ground zero mosque became a moment of recognizing just how much of identities have pulled apart.

EBOO PATEL, AUTHOR, SACRED GROUND: So you know, during that discourse, my mom called me and said about my two kids, who are five and 2-years-old. They are watching right now. She said you should change your kids` names because they sound a little bit too Muslim. That`s how afraid, Muslims were.

But I have to say that that fear has also transferred into something different for me. I spent spending a lot of time reading about the civil rights movement. What struck me so much about that, is that the people in this nation, African-Americans who have experienced the harshest side of American prejudice decided that they wanted to build America`s promise. They decided that America was not a life, but a broken promise and they gave their bodies and blood to save that. I think about this line from Langston Hughes. America never was America to be, and yet, I swear this oath America will be. And that`s inspiring the work we are doing at interfaith, youth core, inspire me to write this book "Sacred Ground." This notion that all names are American names, that the bridge, that the hyphen between Muslim and American is a bridge, not a barrier.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. I heard Ben Jeles talk about this idea, that he has a great grandfather who was born of slave and died a senator. And that idea that, you know, when that happens, one is a sort of expansive story about America. But the other piece is, who in the world who was born into slavery would think, oh, I know. I`ll run for office in that government, right? That sense of hope and possibility.

And, yet, Valerie, and you I have talked a lot about how post 9/11 violence against Muslims. But then misdirected violence that was meant to be directed against Muslims but gets directed against the Sikh community. And so, when I heard about Oak Creek, I couldn`t believe that it was happening more than ten years later. Remind us what Oak Creek tragedy is.

VALERIE KAUR, SIKH-AMERICAN FILMMAKER: So, a gunman who is cultured in the ways that hate in America, came with a product of hate groups in America, walked into a sacred house of worship on a Sunday morning and opened gunfire on August fifth.

I spent most of the last month in Oak Creek with the families and the kids who lost their parents in that massacre, six were murdered. Their pain and their grief is profound. You know, tor the Sikh community, the tragedy is not the greatest tragedy in Sikh-American history, but it is a moment of violence that has shaken us in the last decade, even in the last 100 years in history, as of moment that calls us to action.

But what was unprecedented was that, we received unprecedented national attention, that flags were lowered, thousands of people attended vigils, that grounds were oddly seminary alone collected and delivered 4,000 letters of support.

So, what I saw was that kind of support really emboldened young people in Oak Creek and really across the country to face the sea of cameras and to tell the story of their faith. And to call for an end to hate, not just against Sikh-Americans, but really all people still struggling to live as free and equal Americans.

HARRIS-PERRY: And it feels to me like part of the challenge that Sikh-Americans face is, even what we`re seeing our president facing, which is every time you do a Muslim denialist, every time you say I`m not a Muslim. You actually re-enforce Islamophobia.

JAMAL: Right. Right. That`s exactly right. I mean, the big problem for the Muslim community, at least from a spectator perspective is that, every time an event like Wisconsin happens or Obama is accused of being Muslim, immediately you will see, well, they weren`t really Muslim. Obama really isn`t Muslim. Almost by default saying if they were, all the better.

KAUR: That`s right. That`s right.

HARRIS-PERRY: That`s right. If it were Muslim it would be illegitimate to be president of the United States.

JAMAL: A Muslim should not be president of the United States, and Obama has gone to a great extent -- President Obama has gone to a great extent in denying any, you know, any roots that are actually Muslim.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. We have much more when we come back, we`ll talk about the 9/11 legacy that we need to extinguish.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Our guest, Valerie Kaur, got her start as a documentary filmmaker shortly after the September 11th attacks with the documentary entitled "divided we fall" in which she explored how life was for Muslims, Sikhs and other marginalized groups who are stereotype as terrorist in the aftermath of 9/11.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The minute I saw it happen, I told him Sikhs are in for a hard time, be prepared.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically, I don`t care where you`re at.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s a lot of backlash. He said what do you expect? You expect people to come around and give you roses?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So post 9/11, there is this backlash.

KAUR: It`s troubling that it`s been 11 years later, and we`re still struggling to be seen as fully American in this country. You know, Oak creek though, it`s not just a Sikh-American tragedy, it`s unique among American tragedies that could be the largest racially motivated mass shooting in recent U.S. history.

So, what I`m really proud, is that Sikh Americans are coming out and saying we need our government to do more to combat hate against all groups in America. We need to look at domestic terrorism. We need our Congress to hold congressional hearings that look at hate groups. And I am very proud to say we`re working with the interfaith youth program for auburn seminary to bring that kind of dialog to combat hate on U.S. college campuses.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. And Eboo, Valerie brings up the U.S. congress. As I was reading your text, "Sacred Ground" which I think more than anything else, it`s interesting you talk about the civil rights movement because it is the kind of language about beloved community, right? The way in which American exceptionalism could be understood as our pluralism. But you tell this story about Newt Gingrich that I was riveted by. Tell the viewers.

PATEL: So you know, just briefly, our beloved community. I want to see that it is obviously Martin Luther King Jr. who would vent us the idea in America and I`m here to do this talk (INAUDIBLE) logical seminary, Monday night at the interfaith influences of king.

And so, as I sit with you all, I think to myself, interfaith cooperation is such at the heart of the American story, and we`re looking for a new generation to rise up and write the next chapter.

Having said that, Newt Gingrich was interestingly part of that positive story of interfaith cooperation not so long ago. My friend, Suhail Khan, who was a Republican Congressional staffer in the mid until late 1990s needed a place to pray in the capitol. Juma prayers on Friday afternoon. The speaker of the house at that time was Newt Gingrich and provided him that place to pray. We need more Americans to stand up be the 1996, 1 997 version of that, right? To be welcome in the contributions of all communities in this country and nurturing cooperation between them because that`s what America is about.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. So, what I loved about the story. It`s like OK. So, as speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich is prepared in that moment to provide space for the Friday prayers, almost like a second (INAUDIBLE). But that`s not the Newt Gingrich we see today, and it`s not so much just because Gingrich has changed, but because the incentive structure has changed for an American politician.

JAMAL: Is has become now socially acceptable, if not socially desirable to be anti-Muslim in the United States. So, it`s the whole campaign, you know, where you see - in terms of the right, if you may, it has been on this Islamophobia bandwagon. And it is basically who is going to join in, who is going to join it more fiercely. That`s the irony of all of this.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. There`s an anti-Shariah law plank, right, in the Republican convention -- party platform.

JAMAL: Basically, there anti-Shariah campaigns in about 33 states in the United States. Shariah laws, which never even emerged. I mean, if you would ask me, somebody who studies the Muslim world and the Arab world, what is the content of these laws, they really don`t exist.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. So, let me ask you one last piece on this. The Democratic Party, and President Obama`s re-election campaign is very much making the death of Osama bin Laden a central foreign policy achievement which I think, you know, Americans would agree with. But I also -- also always have just a little bit of a like -- is there any way which that continues to make us think that Muslims are, in fact, our enemy?

PATEL: Let`s make the death of hate in America our most important achievement as a nation. You know, the most American thing you can do is stand up for the dignity of somebody else, and I`m so proud that Muslim-Americans are praying and standing with Sikh-Americans. I`m so proud that we`re a nation that recognizes although there are people we`re preaching we are better apart or better divided. What we know at interfaith youth core ground swell is that we are better together and we have to build that country.

KAUR: That`s right. What gives me hope is a rising generation that has comes of age in the shadow of 9/11, but is now stepping out to the light. The kids in Oak Creek actually, Melissa, asked me to give you this gift. It`s an orange bracelet that simply says August 5th, 2012. They want me to thank you for not forgetting them this 9/11 anniversary.

HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you. I will not cry on television. OK.

I thank all of you for being here. Thank you to Eboo Patel and to Amaney Jamal. Valerie will stick around for the next hour.

And when we come back, the solution to our divided government.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry.

At the conventions, both Republicans and Democrats made their cases for the respective candidate. And now that they are done, it`s time for the voters to pick sides and decide whether they will be wearing an elephant or donkey pin come November 6th. Whichever candidate voters ultimately choose, will have to make his way through the increasingly partisan waters of Washington, D.C., because the likelihood of one party winning the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representative is quite slim, although not impossible.

In without that majority, in the current partisan political world, it`s impossible to have a monopoly on compromise. So, absent majority, how can a president govern across party lines? See, that`s the word again, party.

The two-party system has long dominated the political landscape. And it`s not only making nearly impossible for a president to get anything done. It`s doing nothing for the image of Congress. A recent Gallup poll shows that just one in 10 Americans approve of the job that our elected leaders are doing in Congress, one in 10.

And as for what Congress is getting done, well, it isn`t much. As of mid-August, only 61 bills out of 3,914 introduced have become law -- 61. Folks who say the system is broken is an understatement.

So, how do we fix it so the politicians we elect are more productive than partisan?

The new book "The Parties Versus The People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans" offers the argument that we`ve surrendered to the parties, and that they function no mother than private clubs that have hijacked our democracy and are more interested in retaining power than serving the people.

But the book`s author suggests that we`re not without hope. We can get our democracy back on track by doing a number of things.

First, we can have open primaries so that multiple candidates can be considered, not just the one selected by the parties. We can also take the power of redistricting out of the hands of legislators that are influenced by parties, put it into the hands of nonpartisan panels so that politicians can`t just cherry picked their districts and voters. As far as Congress is concerned, a nonpartisan congressional leadership should be established which can establish nonpartisan processes to help get more done.

Is this all of this just a little political science fantasy, or can these measures work? Or are we too far gone?

Let`s ask the author himself. I`m joined by the author of this book, former Congressman Mickey Edwards, who also serves as vice president of the Aspen Institute, director of the Consortium project.

All right, Mickey, did I get it about right? That the argument of the --

MICKEY EDWARDS, AUTHOR, "THE PARTIES VERSUS THE PEOPLE": Yes, that`s the argument pretty well. And what`s amazing, Melissa is that every two years, voters go to the polls to take back their country. No matter who we elect, we want to take back the country.

And the problem is it`s not who we elect. It`s the choices get narrowed in the party primaries. So, how in the world does somebody like Akin in Missouri get to be a nominee of a major party? Because he has a closed party primary that washes out everybody else and those people can no longer be on the ballot, or the example I like to use is what happened a couple of years ago in Delaware.

HARRIS-PERRY: Christine O`Donnell.

EDWARDS: Yes. Well, Delaware has a state of a million people. She only got 30,000 votes in her primary, but that was enough to keep Mike Castle off the ballot and that happens in state after state. So, you know, what we`ve done is allowed the parties to rig the system and say, you know, I don`t know you very well. But I know you want choice in phones, you want choice in shoes, we tell you, when you go to the polls, I`m sorry, you get A or B, that`s it.

HARRIS-PERRY: I`ve really appreciated this book, because it takes what I think what`s become a mime, kind of an American media. There`s too much partisanship, or there`s too much polarization and it explains both what it really is and also how it`s not just like there`s bad people, right? You know, if we get a nice guy in, it will all be solved, but rather than, there are incentives and structures.

You write that partisanship, which is not a conflict over principle, but a combat between private organizations, each seeking political advantage, but this is what is creating a system which stirs not confidence, but rage.

So explain to me, what -- when you say these are private -- basically private businesses rather than sort of large democratic with a little "d" systems.

EDWARDS: Well, what they are groups that aren`t looking at what`s the best welfare of the country, how do you win the next election?

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

EDWARDS: So, that if you are serving in Congress, as I was, and you want to be member of the ways and means committee, because you have expertise on those kinds of issues, you`re going to be told by your party, here are our positions, it doesn`t matter your experience, you haven`t seen the bills yet, you can be on the committee if you promise in advance you`re going to stick with the party line.

And so, you -- what you have to do is prove your loyalty to the unwavering support of your party. And then whether you -- the incentive system works, that if you`re running for office, Melissa, it`s not the people of your state, Louisiana, in this case, who are going to decide. It`s the people who show up in the primary, a small number of people. And most states have sore loser laws. So if you run in the primary, very popular in the state, but you can`t win your primary, then you can`t run in the fall.

HARRIS-PERRY: They call them sore loser laws.

EDWARDS: That`s great.

HARRIS-PERRY: I want to look quickly of the American approval ratings of Congress, because I found this, particularly given our last conversation about post-9/11, I found this really interesting. Right now at a minimum, you see how low we are, but that height, that little spike of an 84 percent approval rating, occurs around the beginning of 2002, which says to me that is the post-9/11 spike, that is when American Congress is getting a lot done, but that the things that they are getting done are things I would generally not be supportive of, particularly restrictions of civil liberties.

So when I saw that, I thought, hmm, I wonder if there`s a tradeoff. Maybe it`s better not to have everybody on the same bandwagon and getting things done?

EDWARDS: No, I don`t think we should have that. In fact, I am deliberately not a centrist, because most of the great movements, the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women`s movement, those didn`t come from the center. But what we have to do is to have the ability to talk to each other and to compromise when we need to.

I mean, there are 310 million of us, we`re diverse, we have all kinds of experiences -- racial, political, religious experiences and what we need to do at some point is act as a single country by finding -- you may have one set of a views, and I have another. But at some point, we have to say, OK, where we can we find an area of common ground so we can act together, as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats.

But on issue after issue -- budget or stimulus or Supreme Court nominations, whatever it, all Democrats on one side, all Republicans on the other side, and they are acting like private clubs.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

EDWARDS: Yes?

HARRIS-PERRY: And these are things that are -- that don`t necessarily or inherently have to be partisan. We`re going to keep talking about this, but also try -- we`re going to bring you some other voices and start talking about what are the solutions.

EDWARDS: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: But I appreciate for really explaining what the fundamental problems are. Let`s start thinking about the solutions.

So, when we come back, we have some news this morning about the party`s potentially coming closer to together than we would have ever thought.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We are awaiting President Obama at a campaign rally on day two of his swing through Florida this morning. We will take you there in a little while.

But first, I want to take a look at something from earlier today. In an interview aired on NBC`s "Meet the Press", Mitt Romney made news when he alluded to the fact that he`d keep significant parts of the president`s health care plan if he is elected president. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I`d say we`re going to replace Obamacare. And I`m replacing it with my own plan and you, even in Massachusetts where I was governor, our plan there deals with preexisting conditions and with young people.

DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS: So, you`d keep that as part of the federal plan.

ROMNEY: I`m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I`m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with preexisting conditions can get coverage. Two is assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.

I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance -- health insurance on their own as opposed to only being able to get it, on a tax advantage base from their company.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: How is that for a bit of compromise?

At the table, former Congressman Mickey Edward, author of "The Parties Versus the People," Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, Columbia University assistant professor Dorian Warren, and Valerie Kaur, director of Groundswell at Auburn Seminary.

OK. So, what we heard there is, you know, the presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, saying, OK, there are aspects of Obamacare that I would keep. There is part of me that wants to cheer that, and say, well, of course, you passed something very similar in Massachusetts. Is this an example of sort of a bipartisan recognition? Or is the very fact that he`s against the thing that he was originally for an indication of how bad partisanship has become?

DORIAN WARREN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I think it`s actually two things. One, an attempt to appeal to moderate and swing voters. And second, it`s an attempt to take away an issue from President Obama as we`re getting closer to the debates because he`s obviously very vulnerable, on the fact that Obamacare was really Romneycare first.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

WARREN: How can he say he wants to repeal something that he`s already implemented as on governor of Massachusetts? So, I think it`s both of those. It`s actually kind of a smart of strategy. You take away the issue that you`re most vulnerable on and you try to appeal to swing voters.

HARRIS-PERRY: But, see, I wonder if even sort of -- in our desire to do that, to talk about whether it`s a smart strategy or bad strategy, that we missed the expansion of health care to Americans, and the extension of access to people who don`t have it now is good, full stock, right?

WARREN: Yes.

HARRIS-PERRY: And we may have disagreements about free market versus, you know, individual mandate and all of that, but it is good for more people to have greater access to quality health care.

JUDITH BROWNE-DIANIS, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT: And he`s acknowledging that, finally. He didn`t acknowledge it at his own convention, now he`s at the independent convention, convention after convention, how do I get to sway these people I didn`t have an opportunity to talk to. I had to talk one way when I was with my people. Now, I get to go to another convention and start changing my tune.

EDWARDS: Now, he`s talking to the country and he`s able to say, here is what I think, as opposed to here is what I have to say in order to please this small subset that will determine whether I can move forward.

HARRIS-PERRY: Valerie, you want to jump in on this one.

VALERIE KAUR, SIKH-AMERICAN FILMMAKER: I think people can see through means to ends politics. In traveling through the country, I talk a lot to young people, and I know that people in my generation, millenials born in the `80s and `90s, are deeply disillusioned with partisanship in American and with the institutions we`ve inherited.

You know, I remember, I traveled to Guantanamo in 2009 to report on the military commissions, I was there for a hearing of Omar Khadr, a young Canadian citizen imprisoned at 15. Looking at him, he was 23. The guards who are sitting next to him are 18, 19. I was just a few years older.

It occurred to me, the captives, the prisoners, and the one called to bear witness were all young. That we had all come of age in the shadow of 9/11, that we had inherited dysfunctional institutions like Guantanamo and were asked to preserve them.

So, I think what we`re really called to do, whether it`s the economy or criminal justice system, is to try to make sure that our generation doesn`t become despondent by the weight of what we`ve inherited.

And this is why Obama`s politics of hope, recovering that, like we saw in the DNC, is deeply resonant.

HARRIS-PERRY: So I like this idea of inheriting broken institutions.

Mickey, I was reading, this blew me away, that the Congressional Management Foundation gives out to new members of Congress, sort of how to set up your office, where are the bathrooms, right, in the Congress.

EDWARDS: I needed that information.

HARRIS-PERRY: And that their guide for 112th Congress, that`s our current Congress, included a special section titled "increased partisanship and lack of civility." So for the first time, they actually said, hey, welcome to a broken institution. You are going to now be engaging in an institution where we no longer behave in a way that`s civil.

Is that like the inheritance of that brokenness?

WARREN: Well, I think if that`s the case, we`ve inherited a broken institution since the founding, because polarization isn`t new. In fact, it`s the norm in American politics, the thing that Thomas Jefferson said about John Adams would make us blush today, and I don`t even blush.

(LAUGHTER)

WARREN: So the idea that somehow we were in the golden age of less partisanship and polarization, but that`s the norm in politics, a civil war, post Reconstruction Congresses were much less divided than recent Congresses, although now we`ve basically tied those Congresses. So I want to put some perspective here on that.

HARRIS-PERRY: That`s exactly what we`re going to do. As soon as we come back, we`re going to take off the rose colored glasses. I want to ask you as a former member of Congress whether or not there really was a time when things were so much better.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? Because nobody is right all the time and a broken clock is right twice a day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: That was former President Bill Clinton at the DNC on Wednesday, speaking about why cooperation in politics is better than conflict. He also spoke about how he personally reached across the aisle when he was governor of Arkansas to work with Republicans. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: When I was a governor, I worked with President Reagan and his White House on first round of welfare reform and with George H.W. Bush on national education goals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Clinton also worked with Republicans when he got to the Oval Office. And one Republican in particular made mention earlier this year on how he got things done together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: As speaker I came back, working with President Bill Clinton, on a very Reagan-like plan, less regulations, lower taxes. Unemployment drop to 4.2 percent. We created 11 million jobs.

Now, those are real numbers that people can verify out in the open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so it`s true. Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton worked together, but I got to say, I don`t quite remember it as like some big kumbaya happiness of bipartisan behavior. There was after all the whole "shutting down of government" thing and the small matter of impeaching the president.

Look, politics is hard, but does it have to be difficult? And what makes it tough is when certain politicians would rather stand in the way of progress for people, rather than trying to help it along. If President Obama able to win a second term in November, maybe it will send a message to obstructionists that their behavior was not rewarded. But maybe it won`t.

If Mitt Romney wins, it will be interesting to see if he`s able to work across the aisle or if Democrats are going to learn from this obstructionist win and block his path.

Back with me now are my Congressman Mickey Edwards, Judith Browne-Dianis, Dorian Warren and Valerie Kaur.

Mickey, that felt to me like golden age of partisanship, you know, roast rose colored hogwash. Was there a time when it was better?

EDWARDS: Well, as Dorian says, it was never a golden age. But Medicare, Social Security, both were passed by majorities of Democrats and Republicans, the most controversial Supreme Court nominees, Douglas, Frankfurter, Brandeis, confirmed overwhelmingly. And so recently now, imagine Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan, it`s party versus party.

So, there was a time when people have strong feelings then just like they do now. But they found a way to come together so that we can govern as a nation.

So, there has been a time when you did on all kinds of budget issues and spending issues, you would come together and say, OK, we`re going to get something done as a country.

HARRIS-PERRY: Some sense of -- I got to say, I`m wondering is that when we talk about a time there was more bipartisanship, is that just because of blue dog Democrats? Is that just a group of Southern segregationists Democrats who kept voting with Republicans, so it looks like there was more bipartisanship?

WARREN: That`s true. I think racial issues and civil issues for a long time create an internal division within the Democratic Party, which allowed Southern Democrats to vote with Republicans. So it made it look like there was more bipartisanship.

And, in fact, there was, right, because we saw those cross-party coalitions.

HARRIS-PERRY: But there wasn`t -- but the cross party coalitions didn`t mean necessarily mean that there was this ideological give and take and discursive like moving people forward.

EDWARDS: But the example that I just gave, it was Republicans, whether its Brandeis or Frankfurter and Douglas or Medicare Social Security. It was Republicans fighting Democrats. There was more you diversity and they were not as focused as on how they got through these narrow partisan primaries.

HARRIS-PERRY: One of the things you suggest in the text is that privacy might actually be valuable, a little bit of closed door might actually be valuable for making things work. We tend to think of the harsh light of media as improving things, but, you know, Valerie, you`ve talked about how we`ve sanctioned a discourse of hatefulness and if that discourse of hatefulness also infects our campaigning and our politics and at every point, every vote is being tweeted out and reported on the media, like is it actually better to have a little bit of closed door politicking in order for people to make compromises?

KAUR: Perhaps. You know, I think the hateful rhetoric that has dominated the public discourse does make it far more difficult to come to the table together. Look, my father was a Republican and I grew up in a Republican household. And when I came home, my progressive politicians in college, we disagreed with each other, they made for a colorful Thanksgiving conversation, but we loved and respected one another. It was OK to have a difference in policy.

In the aftermath of 9/11, my father actually left the party, because he saw how his party gave into expansive federal powers, but he also noted how hateful rhetoric that was on the fringes before took center stage.

Fast toward to 2012, we see politicians like Newt Gingrich, like Michele Bachmann, like Peter King, calling for investigations into Muslim American communities, and when Mitt Romney is asked how would you respond, how do you respond to Michele Bachmann`s demand for investigations, he simply said this is not his campaign. This is not a way to lead, when you think of President Bush, how he came out, say what you will about President Bush`s policies, but he did come out after 9/11 and repeated that we`re not at war with Muslims.

So, this has consequences, Republican Party 89 percent white, polling zero percent in the black vote, and has lost people like my father who has seen it gone astray.

HARRIS-PERRY: It`s also interesting thing point that you said that your father`s distaste with the Republican Party becomes both their willingness to expand federal powers, you know, in the context of Patriot Act, right? So part of what I sometimes hear is if you`re a small government, party, that ideology should not allow you to for example want to restrict who wants to get married if you are a small government, then you have a small government position.

Talk to me a little bit about how you see the role of a president in helping to bring about bipartisanship? Because you talk about the Congress, you say there is a role for the president.

EDWARDS: Got a chapter in there about the presidency because one way that the Reagan presidency was successful and the Jimmy Carter presidency was not, was the degree to which they had really good congressional outreach, you know, where they took seriously members of Congress. You know, the president is not the head of government. He`s the head of one of three branches.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

EDWARDS: And the other branch, Congress, is the one that has most of the power. The president to be successful, has to be able to not just summon and lecture members of Congress, he has to say, let`s sit down together.

And when the president and John Boehner able to just get together quietly among themselves, they could have done something.

HARRIS-PERRY: That`s interesting. We could actually imagine Boehner and President Obama coming to an agreement if there weren`t all of the Tea Party noise and the Norquist pledge, that sort of thing.

BROWNE-DIANIS: The other thing to consider is money in politics, the amount to which the system has been flooded with money -- money in/people out. And that also has created this great divide, because, you know, if you are getting money from Americans for Prosperity, then you better line up with that agenda, line up with the ALEC agenda and keep every -- all your ducks in a row so the party can keep getting money so they can keep in power.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. So what happens come January when the dust settles and power in Washington is still divided, is anything going to get done? We ask that question, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We`ve been talking about the partisanship that has become our current political reality. This morning, we saw two of our national leaders speak to just that topic. In an interview with Scott Pelley that aired this morning on CBS` "Face the Nation," President Obama was asked about his willingness to compromise with Republicans in Congress on a grand bargain on the budget.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are some programs that are worthy, but we can`t afford right now, and I`m willing to do more on that front. I`m -- you know, more than happy to work with the Republicans, and what I`ve said is, in reducing our deficits, we can make sure that we cut $2.50 for every dollar of increased revenue.

HARRIS-PERRY: And in response to President Obama`s statement on compromise, Congressman Paul Ryan had this to say during his interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Well, I had been more than happy to work with him. But he hasn`t been acting like that. You know, what we`ve learned in this presidency, he says one thing and does another. He gave us four budgets, Norah, each of which had trillion dollar deficits. None of which ever, ever proposed to actually balance the budget.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Now, as we all know, division doesn`t usually breed compromise. So for elected leaders are so divided, does it leave any room to actually solve today`s big problems?

All right, panel, that`s the question. Is there some way -- let`s assume good will, right? So, which may be a big assumption. But let`s start by assuming good will. What are the actual processes, the incentives by which we might be able to get solutions to our big problems?

EDWARDS: Well, part of it is the question you raised before. And that is, you you`ve got to have some place where it`s not totally transparent. You`ve got to have some place where people can sit down together behind closed doors and talk to each other. But with the Tea Party watching and Occupy watching and everybody watching every move to make sure that you are not going to cave, you know, it becomes really hard to do that.

HARRIS-PERRY: And that`s tough, because on the one hand, like I`m with you, right. As a parent, you know sometimes mommy and daddy or mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy, have to get together behind closed doors and give a unified front to the kids, right? You don`t have the argument in front of the kids, because then they will hold you to it later. But I know that you really want, right? So we get that.

On the other hand, the very nature of democracy is that we need to know what our politicians are doing, so that we can hold them accountable. How do we balance that accountability concern with that like actually getting things done concerned?

EDWARDS: Well, when you get the spinal bone, it has to be open, it all has to be transparent. You know? So --

KAUR: I have to say, though, that there are moments when I do not want the president to compromise. I mean, I thought that I was voting in campaigning hard for a revolutionary president, and the president has been nothing but the king of compromise.

And this has been most devastating to me personally on the issue of civil liberties, with Guantanamo remains open. He supported indefinite detention, drone strikes, racial profiling, the use of torture in some instances and this kind of record on civil liberties makes it so that he had to work hard to make me feel any kind of hope for any kind of a second term.

HARRIS-PERRY: Wait, it`s an interesting point, because this has been I think a challenge in holding together President Obama`s coalition, a left that has had a great deal of anxiety.

Now, it`s interesting to me to hear you say of a revolutionary president, perhaps because he been my state senator and my senator --

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. I mean, he`s always been a very solid, progressive, moderate, you know, who sort of moves the ball. I mean, that`s been true of his legislative record, but also that the very idea of a revolutionary president is very hard to imagine. To be in the structure is to be in the structure.

WARREN: So, there`s a recent book out by your former colleague, Marty Gilens at Princeton which shows that the most affluent Americans almost always get their way in Congress, over the bottom 2/3 of income distribution. So that actually highlights a more fundamental problem that a certain group of people, the most elite people in this country, almost always get their way, over and against everybody else. So that`s --

BROWNE-DIANIS: The other fix here is our civic duty to engage in democracy doesn`t end on Election Day, right? We get the conversation totally gets hijacked; by these extreme voices, like the Tea Party, right? And in the midst of that, there are regular Americans that need to continue to be engaged after the election, but they are not. And so, those voices of the every day people who could sway politicians just doesn`t get heard.

KAUR: And this is why I still have hope, because I think it was our failure. Like I stopped, we stopped on Election Day, because we expected to invest our hope in him. What he said at the convention was like, no, no, I have hope in you, and he`s calling for to us have hope in him too.

And in the moment where we have agitate, and he did come out and repeal "don`t ask, don`t tell." He`s kind of came out for marriage equality. He created a pathway for citizenship for young, undocumented student.

So, there has been enough that to me that he`s done revolutionary to hope for a second term.

HARRIS-PERRY: And also think that Mickey`s point was of that we don`t want to miss. He`s not the head of government, right? He`s the head of one branch of equal branches, right, so at each point, there is -- the founder is purposefully coming out of King George did not vest all of the power in one person. And part of what we lose in a presidential election cycle is we start imagining Mitt Romney will be free to do whatever, or that a President Obama free to do whatever.

It`s simply not true.

WARREN: An irony of the discussion of parties and that is in 1950, the American Political Science Association, our professional association, issued a report calling for more responsible two-party system. And one of their recommendations was more party unity so that voters have more choice. So, we`ve actually gotten there. That`s the irony of this conversation and it`s in many ways an indictment of --

HARRIS-PERRY: Maybe not so much ironic if you know like how bad political scientists are at real politics, right? I mean, we`re really good understanding what happened 10 years after it happened, not so much about the perspective.

EDWARDS: The American Political Science Association had me write an article about the difference between politics and political science -- a pretty big difference. But, you know, I do have hope.

But I want to make clear, you know, kind of the point you made. The willingness to compromise and come together, doesn`t mean you compromise on everything. I was just as upset.

I was very critical of the Bush administration, and one of the reasons that I was, because what he did, no concept that there was a Constitution that he had to follow. And that on all the areas you just mentioned, Barack Obama has been just as bad.

And so, there is a requirement to stand up and speak out and not feel I`m locked in to being true to my team. Speak out for something of value.

HARRIS-PERRY: And I think that`s an important point, and one that, you know, if we look, for example, at the history of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, you know, when he was asked to wait and to compromise, he writes why we can`t wait. Why we can`t compromise.

Up next, the policy and politics of foreign affairs, in particular. You guys have taken us to that, has maybe the hardest part of actually governing, a pretty tough part of campaigning. So, let`s talk about that when we get back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Take a look at this part of President Obama`s speech in Charlotte on Thursday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: So now we have a choice. My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy. But from all that we`ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly. After all, you don`t call Russia our number one enemy - not al Qaeda, Russia -- unless you are still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.

And as we`ve been talking about what wasn`t talked about during the convention is something we can`t ignore -- Governor Romney, could, however, ignore the war in Afghanistan. The GOP`s standard bearer`s failure to mention U.S. troops in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech has been the subject of lots of questions from many sources, even from FOX News.

Here`s how Governor Romney responded to their question on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS: Do you regret opening up this line of attack -- now a recurring attack -- by leaving out that issue in the speech?

ROMNEY: I regret you repeating it day in/day out. When you give a speech, you don`t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important, and I described in my speech my commitment to a strong military, unlike the president`s decision to cut our military. And I didn`t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So that`s what you might call damage control. But President Obama left some key areas of foreign policy out of his address on Thursday night. He did obviously address a name check al Qaeda, but there was nothing said of America`s most complicated foreign relationship with Pakistan or the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria or continuing controversy, even right here at this table of Guantanamo Bay. And perhaps the reason that some of these things were left unsaved when it comes to governing, it can be really, really hard.

And so, the one thing I agree with from what Mitt Romney is saying, it`s not a laundry list, you do choose what you think is important. The president did not in his conversations about -- part of what he`s doing, saying I`m a good commander-in-chief. He didn`t talk about Arab spring.

He didn`t talk much about the potential collapse of the euro and the way that might be impacting our economy. He didn`t talk about the emergence of Africa as a possible trading partner.

He didn`t talk about Pacific Rim influence except maybe sort of a China -- you know, scary and bad sort of thing and didn`t talk very much -- certainly said climate change is not a joke, right? The rising of the oceans. But that international question of how we`re going to address climate change, is it just because there are no votes to be gotten on those issues?

KAUR: Let me say, Afghanistan is not something to be considered on a laundry list.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

KAUR: It shows how out of touch Mitt Romney is with the American people. And frankly with millennials who see our classmates to come home in coffins.

I have a friend who was teaching children surface arts in Afghanistan who just lost a young Afghan man. It`s not just U.S. soldiers. It`s a population in Afghanistan, too.

So, that kind of failure to me indicates once again a candidate who is willing to figure out how to score political points, avoid the delicate sensitive issues, rather than then speak truth to what`s really happening.

HARRIS-PERRY: Although, do you win political points by not -- it`s an odd moment, because typically Republicans are like the rah-rah nationalists turf.

WARREN: That`s interesting about the last four to six years, is that the Republican Party has lost its historic advantage on foreign affairs, and the roles have really reversed, so now the Democratic Party and President Obama is seen as stronger on foreign affairs than Republican Party.

But I think to your first question, it`s going to require us reading the party platforms to get any sense of what positions are on foreign policy and foreign affairs, we didn`t get a sense of that from the conventions, from the speeches, and most Americans aren`t paying attention to that anyway, for better or worse.

I would like to us be conversant in Guantanamo Bay, and Pakistan and Arab Spring. But most Americans are going to -- you know, the conventional wisdom is most Americans concerned about the economy.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

WARREN: So that`s all we`re going to hear.

HARRIS-PERRY: And yet foreign affairs a place where I`m perhaps most afraid of deep partisanship. I do not want partisan concerns, re-election concerns making decisions with what we`re going to do in Pakistan. Like that terrifies perhaps more than anything else.

Is there reason to think that our Congress is so currently partisan divided, that partisan concerns will determine foreign policy?

EDWARDS: Well, you know, when you are stopping whatever the president does, you know, then it does. I mean, you start looking at things through if we support the president on this initiative, it`s going to hurt us or help him in the next election.

But there are so many issues, that I don`t think either party really is addressing very well. Hillary Clinton just had real tough time in China, you mentioned Pakistan which is a serious problem. Chinese are expanding their influence in Africa and Latin America, just the way the Soviets used to do.

You can`t really elect a president of the United States without looking seriously at what`s this person going to do in foreign policy? And in Obama`s case, I`m sorry, but killing Osama bin Laden is not a foreign policy thing. OK, you got that done.

HARRIS-PERRY: It is an accomplishment. I mean --

EDWARDS: It`s an accomplishment, but it`s not sufficient. There are too many other problems.

BROWNE-DIANIS: Actually foreign policy, it was more about us, than it was about foreign policy.

HARRIS-PERRY: Sure. I mean, the Osama bin Laden one is interesting. It`s a legitimate accomplishment, one in part about sort of harkening back to a Bush era that said that getting and capturing and killing Osama bin Laden was the key to closing the chapter of 9/11.

So, on the one hand, he has every right to take credit for that, and the desire to take that credit away from him, I find disturbing. On the other hand, that now done, the issue of Pakistan, the issue of nuclear Iran, our relationship with Israel, how all of that plays out, does feel more urgent even than sort of a justice seeking around 9/11.

KAUR: Let me say, foreign affairs is not the only place where we need strong bipartisanship. We need it looking at threats in our own country assist well. DHS released a report in 2009 that tracked the alarming rise of white supremacist groups since the president`s election, most notably anti government groups. But there was so much backlash in Congress that the DHS has dropped it. The government did nothing.

Here we have now the FBI reporting that in 2010, hate crimes against Muslims jumped by 50 percent, at a time when anti immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric flooded the last election season. We`re in the next election now, the threat of domestic terrorism, the rise of hate in America ought not to be an aftermath. Oak Creeks calls upon us to have a national conversation about hate in America, which means our candidates, we should watch how they campaign, we should watch what they promise to do to protect this country.

HARRIS-PERRY: And I think it`s a good point, that how we campaign is in part how we`ll govern, and the issue we talked about in the first hour around voter suppression, whatever else we ought to be able to agree on, it ought to be on the health of our democracy at the core level, right, that we want more people in our system.

BROWNE-DIANIS: And our voices need to be heard. Unfortunately, to get to your point about the partisan piece in Congress, issues like that don`t come to the table any longer, because you can`t get a hearing. It`s shut down. There`s no discussion. Oh, we can do a briefing, but we can`t do a hearing, because the Republicans control who gets to have a hearing what it will be about.

KAUR: We are calling upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a congressional hearing investigating domestic terrorism and the rise of hate groups in America. And it`s not just Sikh Americans. It`s groups across the board. And we`re hoping that this happens before the election.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, I know. I need another hour and a half, and we will have more in just a moment.

But, first, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT" -- Alex.

ALEX WITT, MSNBC ANCHOR: I just need a couple of hours before you get to your extra hour and a half, OK? Yes, I get it. Here we go.

Mitt Romney is down on "Meet the Press," his new comments on health care reform might surprise you. Is he changing his mind on so-called Obamacare?

New polls out today. Is the president seeing a bigger convention bounce than expected?

In office politics, the matchbooks that helped U.S. capture terrorists. We`re going to look at that.

And is America safer as we approach the 11-year anniversary of 9/11?

Plus, I will talk with the writer who did the first and only post-RNC interview with actor Clint Eastwood. Did he really mean all that he said? We`re going to get to the bottom of that coming up -- Melissa.

HARRIS-PERRY: We were talking about empty chairs earlier on the show.

WITT: Yes, we`ll get a little more of that coming up for you.

HARRIS-PERRY: Thanks, Alex.

WITT: OK.

HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, my footnote on suffering, hope and faith.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: For today`s "Footnote," literally a footnote as President Biden might say. A common wisdom has already emerged about President Obama`s convention speech on Thursday. The wisdom is that it was a workhorse, a policy talk, good, solid, necessary, but also less soaring, ambitious and inspirational than we`ve come to expect.

I disagree. Primed by the years I spent as a seminary student, I heard President Obama`s speech as a recitation of the familiar biblical chapter, Romans 8. Even if you`re not from a Christian tradition, you may have heard of Romans 8. If you`re part of the tradition, I know you`ll recognize it immediately.

Roman is the Apostle Paul`s definitive letter. Written on the brink of a great journey, it addresses divisions of identity within the nascent church. It is more than anything else a letter of encouragement.

And Chapter 8 is the most encouraging of all. Its optimism is built on three key insights.

First, remember that the problems of the moment are transitory, not permanent. "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

Second, getting through the tough times requires patience, perseverance, and hope. Paul reminds us that "Hope is not about what you see at this moment, but what you believe to be possible, because hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?"

Finally, no matter how bad things are in the present moment, holding tight to faith and unflagging hope ensures that we are more than conquerors in the long run.

On Thursday, President Obama followed a similar argument. He acknowledged the continuing problems we face as a nation, but he encouraged Americans to believe in our history, in one another, and in the powerful but difficult work of self-government. Rather than running from hope, he doubled down on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won`t promise that now. Yes, our path is harder. But it leads to a better place. Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together. We don`t turn back. We leave no one behind.

We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that destined horizon knowing that providence is within us and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on earth!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: President Obama was not demanding or assuming that voters believe that the Bible is an inspired, sacred text. He was asking voters to draw encouragement from its lessons.

Hope is not vain or silly or misguided. It`s powerful. It keeps our eyes fixed on a brighter horizon. And once we can see the hopeful future, we have to do the work of walking forward together to achieve it.

And that is our show for today. Thank you to Mickey Edwards, Judith Browne-Dianis, Dorian Warren and Valerie Kaur, for sticking around.

Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going to see you again next Saturday, 10:00 a.m. Eastern. And next week, I will have an exclusive interview with the author, Maya Angelou.

Coming up, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT."

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2012 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2012 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>